Push to complete a Gargant list - 2019

Abetillo

Post subject: Re: Push to complete a Gargant list - 2019

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:10 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pmPosts: 220Location: Galicia

Doomkitten wrote:

Abetillo wrote:

I prefer if we are to limit air to go with a minimum of four Fightas than to add an artificial limit of 1/4. But i do not think that we need either, as Kyusschains said, they are needed and on the other side this list loses a lot more than others if going heavy on air, and as proof of that, almost no one has tried that with OGBM

If they are still needed, that's an issue with the list itself, which can be fixed. But, if people really don't want to take a full 6 formations of fightas, then the change of limiting it to one air selection per Gargant still permits the requisite air, but at least attempts to curb the potential for outrageous spamming.

And the list is still about Gargants, not about air power. If there's an issue with the functionality of the list, adding airplanes instead of doing something with the Gargants or smaller relations in the list feels like a clumsy and lazy fix that only detracts from the really strong and cool theme of Massive Stompy Orks!

Again i think that you have to take into account that they are Orks, they are unorganized and crazy, same as how you can take an all Gunzmob list with Ghaghkull and it is still Orky, makes no problem that lots of Fightas can be taken on this one, as no one will try that on a Tournament which make the list still Orky while maintaining variety and craziness, even in appearance from the point of view of a list for Tournaments. It is a different list philosophy and other races list philosophy should not be taken, in a similar fashion to what Jimmyzimms said that we are tending to make all the lists the same and we are restricting ourselves. Still this list is very restrictive already for an Ork one, so even more would be nasty (not that i am thinking that all Ork lists should have the same flexibility, but that we should not go to the other extreme like many news lists, that while they can fit for those races, do not for Orks).

Still i think that we are talking for no reason, as we should do that if that kind of list poses a problem, first of all, not before we get to test it.

It’s also worth mentioning that in previous editions the Gatling Cannon was specifically a Great Gargant only weapon and not an option for the regular Gargant. Also the background text in Titan Legions for the Gatling Cannon writes that it is “commonly mounted on the lower arm mount of Great Gargants” and that’s normally where I’ve seen it attached on old Great Gargant models. I don’t mind expanding the places it can be taken but having it as a Belly only gun causes unnecessary compatibility problems for some with nicely painted up older Great Gargants such as the one below. Can you change the weapon to be a Great Gargant arm weapon also please? Ideally make a separate better version of it when as a Great Gargant arm weapon with even more shots again? Supa Gatling Cannon or somesuch?

Yep that's an oversight, we should do a better Gatling gun for the arm point on the Great Gargant.

Quote:

Also please add the option for a Great Gargant to be armed with a Ripper Fist too!

Counts-as Lifta-Droppa?

Quote:

It would be handy to get an Epic-UK ruling on whether a model needs to be fully or partially on a road to claim the bonus too. Both this list and a titan legion could have lots of models wider that the common road sizes and it's unclear if they can use the bonus or not. Given it can have a signifiant effect on some games it seems better to rule it one way or the other rather than leave it up to players to discuss before game.

Again i think that you have to take into account that they are Orks, they are unorganized and crazy, same as how you can take an all Gunzmob list with Ghaghkull and it is still Orky, makes no problem that lots of Fightas can be taken on this one, as no one will try that on a Tournament which make the list still Orky while maintaining variety and craziness, even in appearance from the point of view of a list for Tournaments. It is a different list philosophy and other races list philosophy should not be taken, in a similar fashion to what Jimmyzimms said that we are tending to make all the lists the same and we are restricting ourselves.

Army balance and list theme for tournaments has been cited as far, far overriding the fluff of developing lists so many times that your suggestion that the list having unorganized and crazy options makes it feel very Orky is totally and utterly irrelevant. It's also completely and utterly wrong - Orks and their different clans have always been very easy to differentiate. Actually, Orks are easier to split into clans and sub-lists precisely because they don't think about things like tactical flexibility.

Either way you slice it, I disagree.

The list, for it to have any purpose or reason to exist, has to be about Gargants, as the core, as the option that opens up other supplemental units, and as the units that are tactically pivotal. Not air. You can't just decide to include air for reasons that are utterly out of line with the same choices in every other list.

Don't blame me for pointing out that spamming too much air (or anything) is bad and has to be held in check at the list level, blame the people taking the ridiculous spam lists without consideration and thought for the repercussions of choosing such lists.

Yep that's an oversight, we should do a better Gatling gun for the arm point on the Great Gargant.

Great! I still think the basic Gatling Cannon could do with upgrading to 8 and perhaps the GG arm version could perhaps have 10 45cm AT5+/AP5+ shots or so, but I've argued my case above and will leave it to you guys.

Quote:

Also please add the option for a Great Gargant to be armed with a Ripper Fist too!

Counts-as Lifta-Droppa?[/quote]

I’d really rather prefer a dedicated CC choice for Great Gargants than having to count a giant chainsaw as also having a non WYSIWYG short range volcano cannon on. There are multiple GG models with pure CC weapons modelled on and CC is something Orks are very keen on.

heretical thinking here: but why do we have to automatically stat gargants at those DC/a+ values to start with? Maybe that's the thing to look at? Pay for scrap/loot that's used to build it (aka strength). In the infantry / armour focused ork army, a gargant/G. gargant is this centerpiece model and being a big heavily armoured singleton totem makes sense. Here they ARE the army. Seems like we continually fall into the trap of "well we do that in other lists so we automatically have to do that here too". Ummm... no we don't. Yeah yeah sure we have the universal stats for weapons and units but we adapt all the time. Just call a Gargant unit in this list, a Gargant Shell. You then strap on your purchased 'scrap' (aka DC and Armour) to the various chassis you've purchased.

I have to learn from you: My heretical idea was just to make the list as any other Ork list and remove core-support as it is not Orky, but i was near-sighted. While i think that many lists by the community have the flaw of being all the same, with core-support-air lists with only 1-2 core in almost every case, i was falling for that same error too. I was doing as a hobby some lists an i ended up making them too similar to the current ones in concept, and never looked at other options.

Personally i think it could work if we limit the options in armour saves which would be the hardest to balance. Could be put out after this one gets approved as optional rules like the ones Vaalsh have on AMTL. Any plans for that, Tiny-Tim, for after approval, or like an storage of ideas that could be considered for the main list?

Also, while i know it will not happen, i think that this list could remove core-support and go the Ork way and the list will not change (at least Mordoten's version won't (this one we still barely know it)). Proof is that no one took any time a list based around the support, making the restriction unnecessary (before you pull the house rule card, i think it is good if lists offer capabilities outside the most performing ones, and having them set in stone by the community means that they should be balanced and makes it a lot easier to convince others to use them.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum